US330 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3871 posts, RR: 14
Reply 1, posted (13 years 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1556 times:
I have always liked them. They look from the outside like they are small, but because of the large windows, it gives the illusion that, from the inside, the aircraft is MD-80 or 737 sized. Their engines are real distinctive, but at takeoff, they are about the same, noise level wise, as the MD-80, and sometimes can be a bit quieter.
Sleekjet From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 2046 posts, RR: 22
Reply 8, posted (13 years 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1467 times:
As a side note, AA is finding the business class F-100's out of DAL to be quite profitable. There is a great deal of walk-up ticket purchasing at Love Field and those folks are paying big bucks for the ride. I was concerned that with the demise of Legend Airlines, American would reconfigure the planes BACK to original, but it appears the idea is a winner.
CV640 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 952 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (13 years 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1455 times:
From what I've talked to about the flying qualitites and the pilots, they all seem to love the cockpit set up and the way it handles. Very sports car like, but it lacks the muscle. The engines are basically modified GIV engines so they lack the punch with the heavier load. They also dislike the lack of slats, hurts performance with ice and also T/O and landings.
AmericanF100 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 243 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (13 years 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1451 times:
I have flown on the Fokker 100 3 times and loved it all 3. It's very quiet inside compared to some of the other rear engined airplanes and it doesn't feel any less roomy than say an MD-80. The seats are the same size too. I hope you like it. By the way, I also flew on the first Fokker 100, N1400H, delievered to AA!
Gregg From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 327 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (13 years 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1450 times:
I hate the F-100. Some of the reasons have been mentioned already.
There is no rear (cone) exit. If he fuel tanks burn after an accident, everyone behind the wing is in trouble.
I find the inside very small. A normal sized cary on bag will not fit in the overhead.
It has a very low dispatch reliability. The plane is commonly used from hub airports to smaller airports. If the plane won't start in a hub, you'll probably have options, if it does not start in a smaller airport, time to go to the rental car counter.
The plane is quite for a rear engine a/c.
If the plane is all that great, how come many airlines want to dump them, but they can't find buyers. (Usairways was trying to push them on AMR, just one of many examples.)
I think the the lack of a rear exit on a 100 pax a/c should have kept it from getting certified.
AirT85 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (13 years 3 days ago) and read 1444 times:
The plane is and was a good airplane. however, now with Fokker gone, MX costs are getting extremely high and parts are getting low. And with airlines trimming fleet types, the Fokker 100 is a great airplane but a misfit one at that. I personally love the Fokker 100. I get on them alot from PHL-PIT and back on USAirways. Also flew ISp-PIT on one. Definately beats out the DC-9 =)
Fallingeese From Canada, joined Apr 2001, 2097 posts, RR: 18
Reply 13, posted (13 years 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1424 times:
About the rear door. As you have said flight attendants have found not having a rear door a pain. I looked thtough some pictures and noticed something. All of the American carriers had no rear doors along with some European Carriers (KLM UK, and AF), while others have a emergency exit door at the back on the left. If it is such a pain why didn't the American Carriers opt for this extra door? Is it because of the number of pax in the aircraft?